We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

In 2012 in a significant decision for financial advisers, the Federal Court of Australia found a foreign bank, credit agency and an Australian investment advisory company were all liable for misrepresentation with respect to the sale of a financial product to local councils in New South Wales (Bathurst Regional Council v Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] FCA 1200).

We noted at the time of the original decision that although the case concerned financial products, it had implications for a variety of industries. In particular:

A company engaged to provide an opinion or assessment cannot necessarily rely upon information provided to it for the purpose of formulating the opinion. The company must exercise due care and skill to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to rely upon the information provided. This has application in a broad range of industries including banking, financial services, insurance, construction, engineering, environment and accounting;

Notwithstanding written disclaimers to the effect that opinions should not be relied upon, companies who are engaged to provide independent views, but who fail to verify information relied on or who fail to take into account all relevant factors, may still be found liable to third parties who rely on the opinion provided;

There is a risk that companies who publish the opinion of an independent expert in selling a product may be held liable for misleading and deceptive conduct if they are aware that the independent opinion is not based on accurate information (for example, if they know the data provided to the independent expert was controlled to achieve a particular opinion); and

Financial advisers with long standing client relationships who fail to ensure their clients understand the nature of the investment may be liable to the client for losses incurred as a result of that investment.

The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeals including the argument of S&P that because it was supplying the product to an experienced commercial entity which had its own Australian Financial Services Licence and experience in the financial markets it did not owe a duty of care to LGFS. The Court rejected this argument and held that in the circumstances S&P still owed a duty of care to LGFS.

The only changes to the decision of the trial judge made by the Full Court was to narrow the scope of information in LGFS’s possession that was said to create a conflict of interest for the investment advisor that it should have told its clients about and to clarify that one of the claims was not apportionable under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Compare jurisdictions:Litigation: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

"I love the service. It’s a terrific time saver, very practical, very relevant, and very up-to-date. The best new legal resource I’ve come across in a long time. And free to boot! Please keep providing it."